HC Refuses To Stay On Bc Quota Hike, Asks Four Key Questions For State
State govt claims BC Bills got deemed approved as per Supreme Court judgment: Reports
HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court on Wednesday cleared the way for initiating the poll process for local bodies, allowing the issue of notifications and acceptance of nominations from Thursday, by refusing to stay — as of now — GO 9 and GO 41 issued by the Revanth Reddy-led Congress government, which enhanced Backward Classes (BC) reservations to 42 per cent.
The High Court showed little interest in restraining the State Election Commission (SEC) from proceeding with the election process and posted the matter for further hearing on Thursday at 2.15 pm. With this, the SEC is all set to release the election notification and begin accepting nominations from Thursday morning.
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, posed four key questions to the state government regarding the issuance of GO 9, which amended certain provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act to enhance BC reservations, and the consequent GO 41 reserving offices.
Firstly, the High Court asked whether the state government had issued any notification or Gazette regarding the March 17 Bill and subsequent Bills passed in August, which were sent for the Governor’s assent and supposedly got a deemed-approval.
This question arose in response to the state government’s contention that the March 17 Bill had received deemed assent under recent Supreme Court orders fixing timelines for Governors and the President to approve or reject Bills.
Recalling the Supreme Court’s three-judge bench ruling in ‘Vikas Kishan Rao Gawali vs. State of Maharashtra’ 2021, which mandates the “Triple Test” for providing OBC reservations in local body elections, Chief Justice A.K. Singh asked how the state government had overcome Clause 3 of the Triple Test, which caps overall reservations for SCs, STs, and BCs at 50 per cent.
The High Court also asked how the government could issue GO 9 to enhance BC reservations uniformly across the state, given the demographics of Gram Panchayats and the number of people living in each of those Pachayats vary widely.
The court sought clarification on whether the state was required to publish the data collected by the dedicated BC Commission and call for objections before finalising the report submitted to the government.
Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the state government, replied that there was no requirement to publish or call for objections. He argued that no statute or common law mandates natural justice or public hearings when collecting demographic data for internal state purposes.
Singhvi further contended that there is no constitutional prohibition to provide reservations exceeding the Supreme Court’s 50 per cent cap, pointing to the 10 per cent EWS reservation, which raises the total to 60 per cent. He also questioned why petitioners had challenged GO 9 without first challenging the legislative decision that led to its issuance. He emphasised that the data collected during the survey was analysed by a one-man commission and was valid.
Earlier, senior counsels Kondam Vivek Reddy, B. Mayur Reddy, J. Prabhakar, and others representing the petitioners argued that the Panchayat Raj Act amendments were still pending with the Governor. They claimed that in this interim period, the state government issued GO 9, granting 42 per cent reservations to BCs, in violation of the Supreme Court’s “Triple Test.”
The petitioners cited that the Supreme Court had explicitly directed states and Union Territories not to exceed the 50 per cent reservation cap. They argued that Telangana cannot proceed with local body elections until the “Triple Test” is fully complied with. This Triple Test includes setting up a dedicated commission to collect BC data, specifying the proportion of reservations, and ensuring that total reservations do not exceed 50 per cent for SCs, STs, and OBCs combined.
In this case, although a BC Commission was constituted, its report was either unpublished or not publicly available, which the petitioners claim invalidates the 42 per cent reservation. As the state government requested more time to submit further arguments, the High Court adjourned the matter to Thursday afternoon.
